Actress Angelina Jolie revealed in a New York Times op-ed that she has undergone a double mastectomy. / Safin Hamed, AFP/Getty Images

by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

The Hollywood star's decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court.

The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics' patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company's monopoly leaves it as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman's risk.

It's not the only high-profile case pending before the court that could be influenced by current events:

â?¢ The justices must rule by late June on California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the nation's largest state. Since oral arguments in late March, three additional states - Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware - have legalized gay marriage, and Illinois isn't far behind.

â?¢ The court also must decide whether a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be thrown out because it subjects nine states and parts of six others, mostly in the South, to federal oversight based on a 40-year-old formula. In recent months, civil rights lawyers have helped several municipalities remove themselves from the list in order to show the law is self-correcting.

It's not clear the justices can be swayed by developments that don't change the legal questions before them. In most cases, they vote in private conference just days after the oral arguments, then spend months writing the decisions and dissents.

What is clear is that the nine men and women on the court take note of current events, often commenting on them in their remarks and opinions. They also change their votes after the post-argument conferences in some cases.

Summarizing his dissent in an Arizona immigration case from the bench last June, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to a recent Obama administration decision benefiting the children of illegal immigrants. He even quoted President Obama's remarks from a press conference held 10 days earlier.

And days later, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberal justices to uphold Obama's health care law after reportedly changing his mind during months of intense internal debate.

Instances such as those give advocates on both sides of court cases hope that outside events can play a decisive role on internal deliberations.

"Until the decision is rendered, it is important to show forward momentum," said Fred Sainz, vice president for communications at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian rights group. "They don't live on an island where there's no TV and newspapers."

Jolie's revelation wasn't part of an organized effort to influence the justices, and it's not even clear whose side she helps in the precedent-setting gene patent case.

The news sent Myriad's stock soaring Tuesday by calling attention to the genetic tests available for increased cancer risk. The company performs about 250,000 tests a year, and more than 1 million women have been tested.

"My assumption is at this point that the case probably has as much attention from the Supreme Court as it's going to get," said Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for intellectual property at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "The justices are already thinking about the case."

But critics of Myriad's exclusive gene patent say Jolie's case also shows that women with wealth and power can get the test, while others may be unaware of its existence or lack health insurance to cover its cost.

"We certainly do believe that public opinion matters," said Karuna Jaggar, executive director of Breast Cancer Action. On the other hand, she said, "We don't think we're going to bully the Supreme Court into a decision."

On gay marriage and voting rights, advocates are more hopeful that they can have an impact. Those cases have received the most public scrutiny among the 79 on the court's 2012-13 docket.

Proponents of "marriage equality" helped arrange state legislative calendars so that several states would vote to legalize same-sex marriage in the midst of the court's decision-making. During oral arguments, several justices --including Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote -- expressed concern that the gay marriage movement remained in its infancy.

"It was purposeful," Sainz said. "We want to give the justices clear comfort that they are not pioneers."

Kennedy has factored in states' actions in past cases, such as his 2003 decision to invalidate sodomy laws in 13 states and his 2005 ruling that swept aside juvenile death penalty statutes in 20 states. Here, however, 38 states remain without gay marriage.

"If anyone is pushing the states to influence Justice Kennedy in favor of same-sex marriage, it may well backfire," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. "The trend ... is hardly overwhelming."

Similarly, defenders of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have helped to line up municipalities whose clean record on discrimination for at least 10 years enables them to "bail out" of the provision's requirement that they check all voting changes in advance with the federal government.

From 1998 to 2008, only Virginia municipalities were excused from federal oversight. In the last three years, they were joined by several in California, Texas, Alabama, and the entire state of New Hampshire - in part due to the high court's decision in 2009 making such bailouts available to all.

"Since the Supreme Court just four years ago presumably opened the bailout door so more jurisdictions could walk through, and more have done so, why wouldn't the court consider those bailouts in deciding the pending case?" said Gerald Hebert, a civil rights attorney who has represented many of those municipalities in court.

But Edward Blum, who brought the voting rights challenge as well as another case contesting college affirmative action programs to the Supreme Court, said thousands of jurisdictions remain under Section 5's thumb, far more than the number that have been excused.

"I'm not sure that there's a connect-the-dots here for the justices to follow," Blum said.